International code of zoological nomenclature adopted by the XV International Congress of Zoology

204 Pages·2011·8.57 MB·English

353
CODE INTERNATIONAL
-J'^''
INTERNATIONAL CODE
de of
NOMENCLATURE ZOOLOGICAL
ZOOLOGIQUE NOMENCLATURE
adoptépar le adopted by the
XVe CONGRÈS XV INTERNATIONAL
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS
de of
ZOOLOGIE ZOOLOGY
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
N. R. STOLL (Chairman)
DOLLFUS
R. Ph.
FOREST
J.
N. D. RILEY
C. W. SABROSKY
C. W. WRIGHT
R. V. MELVILLE (Secretary)
PUBLISHED FOR
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
BY THE
INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
LONDON
1964
TABLE DES MATIERES
Préface à la Première Édition: J. Chester Bradley iv
Préface à la Deuxième Édition ^-ii
Introduction: Norman R. Stoll ix
Dates fondamentales mentionnées dans le Code xx
LE CODE
Note explicative 1
Préambule 2
I. De la nomenclature zoologique 4
II. Du nombre de mots dans les noms zoologiques 6
III. Des critères de publication 6
IV. Des noms utilisables 8
y. De la date de publication 18
\'I. Des noms valides 22
VII. De la formation et de l'émendation des noms 26
VIII. Des taxa du groupe-famille et de leurs noms 36
IX. Des taxa du groupe-genre et de leurs noms 42
X. Des taxa du groupe-espèce et de leurs noms 44
XI. De l'auteur 48
XII. De l'homonjTnie 50
XIII. Du concept de type 58
XI^''. Des types, dans le groupe-famiUe 60
X^^ Des t}rpes dans le groupe-genre 60
XVI. Des types dans le groupe-espèce 74
XVII. De la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature
Zoologique 82
XVIII. Règlements régissant le présent Code 88
LES APPENDICES
A. Éthique 92
B. Transcription et latinisation des mots grecs 94
C. Latinisation des noms géographiques et des
noms propres 100
D. Recommandations sur la formation des noms 104
E. Recommandations générales 142
Glossaire 155
Index 163
6'^ 1^
à-
96 V
/
S ^ «af TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface to the First Edition: J. Chester Bradley- IV
Preface to the Second Edition vii
Introduction: Norman R. Stoll ix
Basic dates in the Code XX
THE CODE
Explanatory Note on the Code 1
Preamble 3
I. Zoological Nomenclature 5
II. Number of Words in Zoological Names 7
III. Criteria of Publication 7
IV. Criteria of Availability 9
V. Date of Publication 19
VI. Validity of Names 23
VII. Formation and Emendation of Names 27
VIII. Taxa of the Family-Group and Their Names 37
IX, Taxa of the Genus-Group and Their Names 43
X. Taxa of the Species-Group and Their Names 45
XI. Authorship 49
XII. Homon5nny 51
XIII. The Type-Concept 59
XIV. Types in the Family-Group 61
XV. Types in the Genus-Group 61
XVI. Types in the Species-Group 75
XVII. The InternationalCommission on ZoologicalNomen-
clature 83
XVIII. Regulations Governing This Code 89
APPENDICES
A. Code of Ethics 93
B. TransliterationandLatinizationofGreekWords 95
C. Latinization of Geographical and Proper Names 101
D. Recommendations on the Formation of Names 105
E. General Recommendations 143
Glossary 148
Index 163
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
"Nomenclature being thought so diffictdt, its mastery has been the
object ofcomparatively afew." W. Arnold Lewis, 1872
Like all language, zoological nomenclature reflects the history of
those who have produced it, and is the result of varying and con-
flicting practices. Some of our nomenclatural usage has been the
result of ignorance, of vanity, obstinate insistence on following in-
dividual predilections, much, hke that of language in general, of
national customs, prides, and prejudices.
Ordinary languages grow spontaneously in innumerable direc-
tions; but biological nomenclature has to be an exact tool that will
convey a precise meaning to all persons in all generations.
Linnaeus originated our modem concept of biological nomencla-
ture, but in that period there existed no premonition of the millions
ofsubstantives and substantive couplets that it would contribute to
Neolatin within the two ensuing centuries. Men recognized no com-
pellingprinciplestoguidethemintheappHcationofnames. Perhaps
theearHest dif&cultiesarosefromeffortstoimproveuponnamesthat
had already been given, for even acknowledgment of the rights of
priority was a principle that was at first bitterly contested or half-
heartedly apphed.
The BritishAssociation fortheAdvancement of Science perceived
that zoologists must control the growth and application of animal
nomenclaturebyacode oflawscentrallyagreedupon. In 1842 they
adopted what has come to be known as the "Stricklandian Code",
product of a committee of which such great zoologists as Darwin,
Shuckard, Waterhouse, Westwood, and Henslow were members.
Thiswasasimple codethatlaiddown onlybroadprinciples, andhas
been the general basis of all subsequent codes. It was widely
accepted, translated into French, and an Italian translation
was given general approval by the Padua Scientific Congress in
1843.
Thepresent InternationalCode derivesitsstatusfrom enactments
of the International Congresses of Zoology, but its real authority
hes in the extent to which it interprets and expresses the will of
zoologists in whose consciences its enforcement lies.
Whilebasedon principles, the Coderecognizesnone as paramount
to its fundamental aim, which is to provide the maximum imi-
versality and continuityin zoologicalnomenclature compatiblewith
freedom in taxonomic practice. It seeks to provide the name which
Preface
every zoologist, now and hereafter, under whatever circumstances
maybe imposedbyhispersonaltaxonomicjudgment, shall applyto
anygiventaxon. It especiallyseeks to providethat, underthesame
circumstances, that name shall remain permanently the same.
The Code refrains from infringing upon taxonomic judgment,
whichmustnotbemadesubjecttoregulationorrestraint. Harmony
with taxonomy, however the latter fluctuates, is secured by the
device of types: each name is conceived to be based on a type
(individual specimen or taxon) which for nomenclatural purposes
defines it objectively. Thus the meaning of each name available
for a species, whether vaUd, or a homonym,^r_a^junior_synon3aTi^
—
is defined by the characters of an individual specimen its type,
that of a genus by those of its type-species, that of a family by
those of its type-genus. From the viewpoint of nomenclature each
taxon consists of its type plus aU the other individuals, species, or
genera that any given taxonomist holds to belong to it. The limits
of each are a question of taxonomy, ignored by nomenclature. The
latteracceptsasobjectivesynonjmisonlythosenamesthatarebased
onthesametype;butitispreparedtoacceptortorejectsubjectively
as synonyms names based on other types, in the sense that it pro-
vides the propername forthe zoologist to use, whichevertaxonomic
course his judgment prescribes.
Equallynomenclature does not determinetheranktobe accorded
to any group of animals, but it does provide the name that shall
be applied to whatever rank any taxonomist may wish to assign
it.
The failure of the Code to deal with names of higher rank than
superfamily or of lower rank than subspecies arises from no failure
to recognize the necessity of such names. It exists because the
practice ofzoologists in regardto them isnot sufficientlyuniform to
permit the formulation of rules covering them at this time.
From these considerations it follows that the complete binominal
name of a species can be stabilized only for the type-species of each
nominal genus, and then only to the extent that such genus is and
continues to be recognized as avalid taxonomic entity. The generic
placement of all other specific names is a matter of potentially
fluctuating taxonomic judgment.
Scarcely second to the law of priority is that of homonymy: that
the same precise name may not continue to be applied to different
taxa, for to do so would always be a potential source of misunder-
standing.
Conceiving nomenclatural rules as tools useful only to the point
where they provide the maximum stability compatible with taxo-
nomicfreedom, certainmeasureshavebeen adoptedto preventthem
Preface
from becoming tjTannical, and actually destructive of their own
usefulness.
An International Code makes all these objectives possible.
It is doubtful that the zoological public wiU ever fully compre-
hend the full extent of the labours of the members of the Editorial
Committee in bringing the present revision of the Code to comple-
tion. By way of illustration, after the Committee's carefully pre-
pared draft was submitted to the Commission to be voted upon, in
June 1960, 262 comments were receivedfrom Commissioners. These
related to 63 of the 87 articles. Considering these suggestions, the
Editorial Committee in turn interchanged 564 indi\ddual comments
in resolving the questions raised and r"eaching editorial agreement.
On behalf of the Commission and of aU zoologists I formally ex-
press ourdeep gratitude to the Editorial Committee ofthe Congress,
and to its indefatigable Chairman, Commissioner Dr. Norman
Rudolph StoU.
Also I \\ish to express our gratitude to the InternationalUnion of
Biological Sciences for the grant that made possible a week-long
meeting of the Committee in London, and to the President of the
Permanent Committee of the Congresses, Professor Jean G. Baer,
who requested that the grant be made and suggested that the meet-
ingbeheld. Without thismeetingno suchperfect adocument could
have been achieved.
Finally, in addition to the words in the Introduction about our
former Honorary Secretary, Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
speaking on behalf of the Commission and of all zoologists, it gives
medeeppleasuretoexpressourprofoundgratitudeforhislongyears
of arduous service, for his early perception of the need of reforming
theCode, andforhiswise andpersistentmeasurestakentothatend.
Chester Bradley
J.
President, The International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature